The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

This week our class watched John Ford’s 1940 film titled “The Grapes of Wrath.” I must say, I have a lot of mixed feelings about this film and I’m still not sure if I liked it or not. But, like most films, there were some things I found very enjoyable and other things I really didn’t enjoy much.

To start, I really enjoyed some of the characters as they seemed to bring a comedic, light-hearted feeling to it. I think my favorite character was Grandpa because he was so out there and a bit odd. His odd behaviors were funny and entertaining to watch, and I feel as though his character lifted the spirits of the other family members. I was pretty disappointed when he died so early into their trip to California, and I think his death really affected the family’s trip because they no longer had their funny and crazy grandpa to make them laugh. I also found the character of grandma really entertaining because of her hilarious mannerisms. I believe there were even a few scenes where she didn’t have any dialogue, but would simply stick her tongue out or make a weird noise. To be honest, I think the grandparents were the two most entertaining characters in the film. Without them, I’m pretty sure I would have lost interest in this film much earlier than I did.

After both of the grandparents died, I found it extremely difficult to focus on the film because I just thought it was so boring without those two characters. The story itself wasn’t too bad, but it just seemed to drag on and on. I think I tend to lose interest in movies that are revolved around such depressing themes. I tried really hard to concentrate and look for other things within the film that I liked, but I couldn’t get passed the fact that nothing seemed to go right for this poor family! I mean, there were a few times during the film where I found myself saying, “Really? Come on! Something has to go right for them, right?” During their long journey from Oklahoma to California, both of the grandparents died, they had numerous car troubles, and they were low on food and water for the majority of the trip. Seriously? And just when you think nothing else worse could happen, things somehow get a lot worse once they arrive in California. Connie up and leaves his wife because he couldn’t handle the pressure of not being able to find work and living in different camps, Jim Casy gets killed, and Tom gets in a fight with one of the camp officers which forces the family to sneak out leave that camp the next night. Once I realized things were probably never going to go well for this family, my interest in the film dropped dramatically.

After thinking about it, I don’t think I enjoyed this film very much because it was so depressing. I think I would have been more interested in this film if good things would have happened to the Joad family every now and then. But the fact that almost nothing good happened to the family throughout the movie just made it less enjoyable for me.

Gold Diggers of 1933

This week, our class got to watch the 1933 musical titled “Gold Diggers of 1933,” and I was very excited about it. I used to be extremely involved in my high school’s theater department, specifically in our musical theater productions, so I was really excited to see a musical that I had never seen before.

One aspect of this film I really enjoyed was the music itself. The majority of the songs seemed so upbeat and happy even though the musical revolved around the depression and how it was affecting showgirls at that time. The music was actually a really interesting aspect of this film due to its upbeat nature in contrast with its pretty depressing plot. About halfway through the film, I started wondering why the musical director and director of the film would have chosen to have such happy musical numbers but I couldn’t really come up with a good reason. The only idea I had in my mind was that the director wanted something to bring up the mood of the film since the film’s topic was pretty depressing. But as contrasting as the music was, I enjoyed that it was so upbeat. If all of the music in the film was depressing, slow, and sad, I do not think I would have enjoyed the film as much as I did. However, the music was not the only thing I enjoyed about this film.

I also really enjoyed the character of Trixie because she seemed to bring up the morale of her fellow showgirls and of the overall film. Her sarcastic attitude and love for life made the film easy to watch when she was on-screen, and she also brought a lot of laughter and joy to the audience (and I’m sure the rest of the audience, at least in our class). Trixie’s relationship with Mr. Peabody was also hilarious, and surprised me by how they ended up getting married at the end of the film. I kind of expected Mr. Peabody to be mad at her once he figured out she was just using him for his money, but I was glad to see that he embraced her and seemed to be so nice that it caused her to develop genuine feelings for him. I will say, it seemed like Trixie always sort of liked him for more than just his money, but I didn’t ever expect them to get married like they did in the end. Overall, I think Trixie’s character really pulled this movie together.

Oddly enough, I couldn’t think of anything about this movie that I didn’t like. The plot, music, characters-I thought they were all great. I guess the only criticism I have about this movie would concern the lack of character development in most of the main characters. It seemed like the showgirls and their boyfriends had good (or at least entertaining) relationships, but the audience never really gets to know the characters on a more personal level. I just wish the director would have put more thought into the character development. But other than that, I really enjoyed this film and I think it is one that everyone can enjoy.

Female Empowerment

This week our class focused on the idea of women empowerment, which is something I find really interesting for a few different reasons. Obviously, being a woman myself, I believe women empowerment is a great thing and is something that needs to be talked about. But I realized that a lot of the conversations I’ve had in other classes involving women empowerment have been about the roles of women in society today, not the roles of women in the past. I really appreciated that we were able to talk about and analyze women’s roles in society in the past by looking at different films. For the most part, women used to be portrayed as housewives who were nothing without a man in their lives. But the films we viewed this week showed women in different and powerful roles. It made women seem less helpless without men, and I really enjoyed seeing this in these films. Watching these films made me realize how far we have come as a society to accept men and women in different roles.

One film that really caught my attention was Michael Curtiz’s 1933 film titled “Female.” The film follows the life of Alison Drake, who is a hard-working business woman who is the head of a large automobile company. She seems extremely selfish in terms of her wealth and treats the men in her life as useless objects. After she seduces the man she wants at that moment, she just tosses them to the side the next day and pretends as though nothing happened. Although she makes it appear as though she only cares about herself and her company, the film later reveals that she does want a man in her life and that she doesn’t want to be alone. I was kind of disappointed that we only got to see a few scenes from this film because I was really enjoying it, but I would really like to view the entire film and see exactly how it plays out in the end.

I found it very interesting that Curtiz decided to make a movie that portrayed a woman with so much power at this time in history. Obviously, not a lot of films at this time showed women in powerful, executive positions, but I think it was a great way to show America how women can have just as much power in a corporate setting as men and do just as good of a job. I wish I could have a chance to talk to Curtiz to see why he wanted to make this film. Actually, I find it really interesting that a male director made a film that revolved around the idea of women empowerment. Why wouldn’t a woman want to direct this kind of film? Or were most film directors at this time men? I guess the vast majority of film directors today are men, but still! Why wouldn’t a woman want to direct this film? And what would make a man want to direct a film like this? Just some food for thought I suppose….

Scarface (1932)

This week, our class watched Howard Hawks’ 1932 film Scarface. In general, I really enjoyed this film because it was much more exciting than the past few films our class has seen. The amount of violence that was present in this film actually shocked me, as I’m sure it did early audiences, because I wasn’t fully ready for it. Since we looked at some of the Motion Picture’s Production Codes before viewing this film, the violence just really seemed to catch me off-guard. According to the 1927 Motion Picture Production Code, some things that were prohibited from being in films included profanity, suggestive nudity, sex perversion, and more. To my surprise, almost all of these were present in Scarface, which was produced after these rules came out. It was also interesting to see the amount of items that were on the production code’s “Be Careful” list that were also in this film, including firearms, robbery, brutality, murder, sympathy for criminals, man and women in bed together and lustful kissing. Although there wasn’t really a scene where a man and women were in bed together, there were a few scenes where it was suggested that a man and a women would be in bed together or were just previously in bed together. This movie was full of suggestions like that, but I actually thought it made the film more intriguing. It suggests an idea but allows each individual audience member decide what happens next. I think this is one of the aspects of this film that really kept my attention and left me wanting more by the end of the movie. But there were a few things I didn’t particularly enjoy about this film.

One thing I was really bothered by was how many characters there were in the movie. I kept getting confused on who was who, except for the actual character of Scarface. Due to his scar, I was able to keep track of him. But many of the other male characters looked and dressed the same, so I found it difficult to keep track of all of them. Even the extra men who were just at restaurants or at the Men’s Club seemed to dress the same. It just kind of confused me, so I wish the director would have made the characters more distinct. I also didn’t really like the movie’s ending. I didn’t like how (in the version we viewed) Scarface basically begged for the police to show him mercy and not shoot him. The character of Scarface that most of us today know and love would never have begged the police for anything; he would have stuck to his values and had his own shoot out (which he basically did in the 1983 version of this film). I just felt like it wasn’t a great way to end a “gangster”-type film, but I suppose that is one of the big differences between gangster films today and in the past.

Overall I did find this film entertaining and intriguing. I would find it really interesting if our class had the chance to watch this version of Scarface and compare it to the 1983 version of Scarface. I would also be interested to see what the people who created the 1927 version of the Motion Picture Production Company would think of the newer version of Scarface. I’m sure they would be absolutely appalled….but it would still be interesting to hear their thoughts. :)